Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in English labeled the best ever


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete. The flaw here is the lack of a clear objective criteria for entry. Spartaz Humbug! 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

List of songs in English labeled the best ever

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The list has been regarded as incomplete and poor by several users, with the exception of a few who maintain the article is still 'good'. Another user proposed the deletion, another seconded this motion, and the afd tag was placed in the article.  Zchris87v  05:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Criteria for inclusion isn't clear enough. How notable does the poll/media outlet have to be to get mentioned? A somewhat rigged voting campaign once got the Anthem of the Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen to the top of a Canadian radio poll, but does that make it a "best ever"? Also why limit it to songs in English? Nel Blu Dipinto Di Blu, 99 Luftballons, Sukiyaki and (I can't believe I'm about to do this...) Ça plane pour moi all made some "best ever" lists in English speaking countries in their day. Dbromage  [Talk]  06:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And Comment. Any truly notable poll results (eg. from national rather than local media outlets) can be included in the individual song pages. Dbromage  [Talk]  06:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Too faulty. The polls are too unreliable to make the songs "Best ever". --H| H irohisat  Talk 06:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You've misread the title. It isn't "List of best ever songs in English", rather "List of songs in English LABELED the best ever" (emphasis added).  The page makes no claims about the quality of the songs or the polls. Duggy 1138 00:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how this is encyclopedic? Your reply is appreciated. --H| H irohisat  Talk 06:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOT. Nen  yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 13:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could have sworn that I participated in an AfD on this article, but turns out that was for something else.  Anyway, the problem here is that this is essentially a collection of "Best Song Ever" pronouncements from disparate sources and that amounts to a novel synthesis of information.  ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The deletion hawks are missing the point. This is not a list of "the best songs ever". It's a list of songs cited as best ever by a publication or person of public interest. As such it says more about the citer than the cited. This is why it is sociologically significant. I doubt i would would agree with either George Bush or Commentary magazine on the "best song". But i would like to know what they think. Where else would i find out? If there is a problem with this article, it is too few contibutions to the list.--Ed andrews 23:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's random and trivial who may have made such meaningless throwaway comments. Beorhtric 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Can you give examples from the page? Duggy 1138 00:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Relucant delete This could warrant a list. However, in its current state it seems to me that it gets included if it is ranked highly anywhere. If there were strict, good criteria for inclusion, then this would be worthwile. i said 02:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, This is pretty much just a list of songs that have appeared near the top of random polls and lists.  At the end of the day, the topic is subjective, even with sources/references.  --musicpvm 04:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Postlebury 10:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Regardless of "subjectivity" of the subject, this is a list of what has been labelled such. We are not making a value judgement here, but rather saying what significant polls/whatevers to be the "best song ever". I don't think this page is biased; looking at the list of songs, this is pretty much exactly what I'd expect and they all consistantly show up at the top of polls. So I don't think this page is problematic as long as criteria for inclusion are clear. Titanium Dragon 11:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as there are reliable sources used for such labels. (An Internet poll is not a source for such a label; a chart created by a respected magazine is, for example.)--Svetovid 20:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep To address so points: How notable does the poll have to be? It just has to be a poll.  But when there is "debate" over the result is is usually easy to cite a source mentioned that, eg. Chasing Cars by Snow Patrol is on the list because it topped a national radio poll, but it is also noted that it has been called an example of "fad voting."  Why just English songs?  I'm not sure, it happened before I found it, however, my guess is since this is an English Language Wiki to stop the list being 5 times longer and including polls from 70 non-English speaking countries, but why is the language important anyway?  The similar page that was deleted?  Yeah, I nominated that deletion because that list was vague.  It wasn't a list of best ever songs, but rather songs that appeared somewhere near the top of polls.  The song has to be #1 on a poll to appear on this list (thus The Best Ever).  Near the top?  No.  At the top and only at the top.  You're thinking of another (now deleted) page. Duggy 1138 23:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep could end up as a good source of information.--Borgardetalk 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This can never be trustworthy, therefore no-one should use it, therefore it should not exist. Beorhtric 17:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hirohistat. Jonj  onbt  23:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete per nom.Harlowraman 06:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep everything has sources on it. And comment: what about it's sister page '''List of songs in English labeled the worst ever? Lugnuts 09:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an invalid argument. Dbromage  [Talk]  11:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You missed the point completly. Lugnuts 13:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Any pile of nonsense can be sourced, but this is a diversion for a music chat room, not a legitimate encyclopedia article. Golfcam 09:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, the page is sourced but there's no telling where it stopped. Country Weekly named Garth's "The Dance" as the greatest song of all time in 1994 -- and they're a notable publication, so does that mean it can or can't be included? The criteria are too loose. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 10:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  10:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Listcruft. Computerjoe 's talk 12:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a list with impermissibly broad criteria. I do hope somebody refines the criteria and gives this another try, though. There should be a place here for a good list of songs that, for instance, professional music critics have cited as the best ever. Erechtheus 15:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I agree that a lot of people are missing the point. This isn't a Top 10 list or the viewpoint of any of the contributors to the article.  If you don't know the criteria, I'll explain it... there are different magazine articles, polls, etc., that had subjective opinions that something is "the best ever", and one song was on top of that list (There are no #2's mentioned).  While I don't agree that "Live Forever" by Oasis was the best song ever, there was at least one readers' poll in a magazine that came to that conclusion, once upon a time.  In a fashion more scholarly than one usually finds in Wikipedia, this cites to the source in each instance... a readers' poll, a measure of sales, etc.  And well-researched and sourced articles are what an encyclopedia should be about.  Mandsford 17:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Point taken Mandsford, but take into consideration where we draw the line of what magazines polls qualify for this list. That is certainly going to make this list become over large. I mean soon you could have a school newspapers opinion on what is the best song ever. This is also in my opinion WP:LISTCRUFT. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( tαlk ) 21:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response I see your point, but I tend to believe that "the system works". Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should assume that editors would keep out the nonsense.  You are correct that there is nothing to stop someone from adding the result from a school newspaper; nor is there something to stop anyone from adding "Kilroy Was Here" to an article about Martin Luther King, Jr.; however, there is nothing to stop the next editor from removing something that doesn't belong in the article.  We are our own groundskeepers, and I think there are enough people who to keep this lawn mowed. Mandsford 16:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "the songs listed here have achieved a notable level of fame, through critical and popular consensus." I'd delete the school news paper entry with the note "Not notable enough" Duggy 1138 16:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Labelled the best ever by whom? Inclusion criteria not well defined and would be difficult to narrow down. See "Criteria for inclusion in lists" at lists. --Coppertwig 00:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Labelled by critics and polls.
 * Keep. A lot of people want to delete it because they haven't read the introduction: "the songs listed here have achieved a notable level of fame, through critical and popular consensus." Duggy 1138 16:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This page is trivial, unencyclopedic, pointless, drivel. It's impossible to make the list complete, and its a poor cross-reference. Each song's article can have its mention in the article, but this needs to go away.--CastAStone|(talk) 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep there's really no point in deleting it, it's like films considered greatest ever or television series considered greatest ever. User:AKR619 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKR619 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.